Crisstti
Legend
Yes, indeed.
Also, his hc level is very high. Let's not forget who he beat in both his hc slam titles (and even who he lost to in the other two at that).
Last edited:
Can Nadal even be considered the GOAT?
- Thread starter Magnus
- Start date
Yes, indeed.
Also, his hc level is very high. Let's not forget who he beat in both his hc slam titles (and even who he lost to in the other two at that).
rosewallGOAT
Banned
Very true. One could even argue Nadal is better on hard courts than Federer on clay. Nadal has won both the hard court slams, I highly doubt Federer would have won both clay court slams if there was a 2nd one considering the luck he needed to win the one he managed. Masters titles are comparable too. Nadal can easily beat anytime on hard courts, while Federer is not even competitive with Nadal on clay. Nadal has won 3 of the 4 biggest hard court events, while Federer has won only 1 of the 3 biggest clay events.
So if Federer is an all time great on clay (for the record he isnt but Fed fans insist he is it seems) than Nadal probably is on every surface, so by their standards only makes Nadal look better. BTW before anyone even tries indoors is not a surface, indoor hard courts are just more hard court events, just as indoor clay or grass are just another clay or grass event; and carpet doesnt exist today.
So if Federer is an all time great on clay (for the record he isnt but Fed fans insist he is it seems) than Nadal probably is on every surface, so by their standards only makes Nadal look better. BTW before anyone even tries indoors is not a surface, indoor hard courts are just more hard court events, just as indoor clay or grass are just another clay or grass event; and carpet doesnt exist today.
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
I was not one of them and I think those who were would have been pwnd in any serious debate on the topic - unless they were specifically talking about greatness in terms of peak playing level in which case they were possibly right: Federer was showing a higher peak level of play than Sampras ever did.
But he also has a much higher percentage of losses (and lower average rank of opponents he lost to) in tournaments that Federer often went onto win - at least moreso than the other way around. It generally took Nadal to beat Federer on clay but it much more often took 20+ ranked nobodies to beat Nadal elsewhere.
That Nadal saved his biggest matches and performances against his biggest rivals - and is amazing at it - must be countered with his shortcomings over a long period on hard courts against much lower ranked players (relative to Federer). Ignoring one side of the argument is plainly partisan style argument.
I never suggested anywhere that Nadal's wins were a blip on the radar - I clearly said that head to heads are a blip on the radar compared to other far more important metrics - the ones which tennis players have been judged on for 40-odd years. Whole results and achievements matter - tennis has never been about any head to head relationships between pairs of players. The way tournaments are formatted, the way rankings are calculated and the way head to head wins per se offer no titles or points is a pretty clear indication that h2hs are not considered important relative to titles and rankings.
I'm not sure that's related to my point. Nadal lost earlier in tournaments which Federer won far more often than the other way around. Basic logic says if Federer had lost earlier as well his head to head would be better against Nadal and he would this appear to be a greater player - even though his results were worse. Quite how people continue to argue in a way that unravels so perfectly when put to the test shows a dedicated partisanship which isn't really worth the time to debate.
You play who you play and you win/lose to whoever you lose. Excluding, excusing or explaining away poor results for pre-prime reasons is no different to pulling mono, bad knee, pre-gluten free, slow courts sort of justifications that we have seen so often in my opinion.
By the same token - when you start excluding or excusing poor results because of X factor you really need to also immediately regard career-long win/loss/surface percentages as automatically void - because they include the same erroneous (pre- or post-prime) results. But, in doing that you are really just picking and choosing the metrics which suit a narrative which again quickly means it's not really worth debating. Taken in their entirety the more important the metric, the more it shows how much greater Federer currently is than Nadal. As yet, there are barely only a few key metrics where Nadal could even be argued as greater than Sampras, let alone Federer.
Well they were fools. I certainly wasn't arguing that because of a point I make just above - even if I might have thought his peak level play was as good as tennis had ever been. In a similar way to the h2h comparisons, the level of play is not what counts - achievements are.
Last edited:
Crisstti
Legend
I guess it comes down to whether one values more consistency or peak level.
Last edited:
VPhuc tennis fan
Professional
At 26-27 year old? I admit I don't follow every single tourney that Fed played in the past, but please enlighten me. !st round loss? 2nd round loss? To player outside of top 100?
abmk
Bionic Poster
Not from 2004-2007
Fed 2004 >> nadal 2009
Fed 2005 ~ nadal 2010
Fed 2006 >> nadal 2011
Fed 2007 >> nadal 2012
Federer has 4 completed seasons with < 10 losses, nadal zero
abmk
Bionic Poster
Nadal on grass is better than Federer on clay. But that's federer's worst vs rafa's 2nd best
Rafa is more vulnerable on fast grass ( halle, queens, early part of wimbledon ).Also much more liable to be upset in bo3. So where is this bunch of masters on grass coming from ? He'd win a few, but not many
Crisstti
Legend
Yeah, it’s ridiculous how some people insist he used it in USO 2010 and never again. He’s said why he prefers not to serve like that, but it’s an option and he sometimes does use it.
Crisstti
Legend
I meant before 2004.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Haven't you got the memo? You can't judge anything Fed has ever done before 2004 or after 2007.
That stuff doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter that he lost in the first round of Wimbledon on 3 occasions.
It doesn't matter that he lost to Nadal at AO in 09 and 12. It doesn't matter he lost to Sergiy in the 2nd round at his pet slam. His losses to Nadal on clay don't count either because apparently he would've owned Nadal if they met more on HC, despite the fact that Nadal owns the outdoor HC h2h 6-2 and that's the conditions at the majors (apart from AO roof when it rains) and pretty much every other important HC tournament on the tour.
Nadal has owned Fed where it matters most and that is a very, very bitter pill for the federinas to swallow...
6
6-3 6-0
Guest
It's a no-brainer that RNadal is an early bloomer, so obviously his records will be better if you compare age-to-age comparisons and credits to him for that. Let's see how he does in his 30's.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
Indeed. I think a lot of people are confusing people that said Federer was the GOAT at that time with his level of play. I'm sure a few idiots called him the GOAT when he had 4 slams at the end of 2004, but to my recollection, most people said that if kept up that level of play to win more slams he COULD be GOAT. A far cry from actually proclaiming him to be the greatest ever.
In fact, my response above is ironic considering how it reminds me these days of Nadal fans who do try to proclaim him as the GOAT when he's 2 slams behind Sampras, and 5 behind Federer who now has a better resume than Sampras. But somehow Federer is not better than Nadal? That makes no sense, and just puts a bigger hole in the H2H balloon because if Federer and Nadal played in completely different eras (meaning they never played once and certainly not 30 times) you would have to go by straight up, everlasting accomplishments like slams (the most important these days) and not H2H (down a few rungs). Federer also leads in YEC's and years and weeks at #1. In Nadal's defence he leads in MS titles and has OG.
But in short, that's yet another fallacy of the H2H argument. H2H is temporary in a sense, but slams are forever.
If I could make an analogy, I would say it's like the meat on a steak or a porkchop. Federer has the meat of the accomplishments right now (slams, YEC's years and weeks at #1), and Nadal is picking the bones. Those being things like H2H, OG, MS titles, DC titles even though I highly disagree with bringing DC into a singles discussion, but I digress.
The thing about Nadal's accomplishments is that he has the career slam over Sampras, and the H2H over Federer, so the short answer is yes, even though the logic is probably lacking, but since slams trumps H2H by a fair margin (and yes that is a fact), I think the answer to the thread topic question is no because even if we consider him better than Sampras (which I don't, and I hope I don't have to explain it given Sampras's run at #1 and his YEC's when compared to Nadal) on the basis of the career slam trumping 2 slams, I don't think anybody sane could objectively (even if you are a Nadal fan) consider the H2H as trumping 5 slams. That is my honest opinion.
Last edited:
swordtennis
G.O.A.T.
I remember watching this Match. It was a good one!
Now I see the contrast from the Coria clay match.
Interesting too because it seemed to me there was not much difference in court speed between the Rome clay and the AO.
Maybe I am wrong, Maybe the weather had to do with them looking very close in quickness.
But Nadals defensive style did not work at the AO.
Omega_7000
Legend
Simple answer: No
a10best
Hall of Fame
YES. He dominates Roland Garros and dominated all on the tour for 2 years before getting injured. Then his H2H against Federer is excellent on all surfaces against him. Plus, he still has a winning record against Novak. FWIW, I am not some butt-kissing fan of Nadal, but his record speaks for itself.
I still consider Federer the greatest because of all those consecutive slam semis and 17 majors. Novak could surpass them all but he is tiring out in slam finals after becoming number one. Who knows, maybe another rising young star could stop them all from winning.
I still consider Federer the greatest because of all those consecutive slam semis and 17 majors. Novak could surpass them all but he is tiring out in slam finals after becoming number one. Who knows, maybe another rising young star could stop them all from winning.
Omega_7000
Legend
IMO,
Can Nadal be considered to be an all time great: Yes
Can Nadal be considered to be the GOAT: No
Maybe in the future but definitely not at this point in time.
World Beater
Hall of Fame
considered..sure..
but he needs a bit more on his resume before he becomes a strong contender.
he needs the #1 rank back..and he needs a few more slams...
this assuming Federer doesn't add to his career too..
but he needs a bit more on his resume before he becomes a strong contender.
he needs the #1 rank back..and he needs a few more slams...
this assuming Federer doesn't add to his career too..
abmk
Bionic Poster
well, yeah, pre-prime nadal was better than pre-prime federer, no question.
But nadal even at his peak never had a season with less than 10 losses - not even in 08 or 10. federer had 4 such seasons.
don't give the tougher competition BS either. Even in 08, 10 , he was losing to the likes of baggy, melzer, davy, ljubicic, mayer etc - all supposedly weak era clowns.
even in 11, he had 9 losses apart from the 6 losses to novak .
nadal in 12, 13 lost in 2r and 1r at wimbledon, federer at the same age won wimbledon vs rafa in 07 and barely lost in 08. so its better you stick with a younger rafa who was making wimbledon finals in 06,07.
(rafa's 08 wimbledon corresponds to fed's 2003 wimbledon )
Unless rafa wins the USO in 13, fed's 08 is very likely to be clearly superior as well.
and good luck to rafa surpassing feds 09 in 14 - 2 wins and 2 finals in majors.
arrange their best years in descending order, correspondingly
rafa's 10 ~ fed's 06
rafa's 08 ~ fed's 05
now where are the corresponding years for rafa for fed's 04, 07 and 09 ?
rafa's pre-prime years were better, but fed's peak years are better and post-peak years likely to be as well.
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
LOL, ha ha ... I already demolished that bolded part of yours. See the above post.
so two of fed's 1R losses to kafelnikov and jiri novak, both who were in the top 5 at one or the other stage in their careers, (kafelnikov even reached #1) when federer was much lower seeded, counts against him ? LMAO ....
only 'bad' 1R loss was to ancic in 02, that's it.
I've already said before plenty of times said that rafa's Wimbledon 08 and AO 09 wins were very impressive .
But federer is still clearly the better player off clay and would've had the edge peak to peak, no question.
Last edited:
